(Unknown person, Senator Lankford, Shane Granger, Robert Morley.)Asked Senator Lankford about POTUS's motivation for Iran deal that is so obviously bad. He didn't have a good answer. pic.twitter.com/ApqV1MSIMA— Robert Morley (@MorleyRobert) August 27, 2015
But why ask Senator Lankford? Did he make the agreement or did he oppose it? He is in the Republican Party and consequently he is inclined to oppose this. He is part of the opposition. It is his duty to his voters and his Republican colleagues to oppose the Democratic Party. I do not mention this to condemn him, but these are facts that must be kept in mind.
Why not instead ask someone who supported the agreement (and there are plenty of people who support it) or even someone who helped devise it?
Why not get out of the information bubble the PCG leadership live in? After doing that it will be easier to understand why President Obama acted this way.
Maybe he should read of how legislators were persuaded to support the agreement.
Just before the Senate left town for its August break, a dozen or so undecided Democrats met in the Capitol with senior diplomats from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia who delivered a blunt, joint message: Their nuclear agreement with Iran was the best they could expect. The five world powers had no intention of returning to the negotiating table. ...PCG has said that Iran has twenty four days to hide a site from inspections. That happens to be not true.
For many if not most Democrats, it was that message that ultimately solidified their decisions, leading to President Obama on Wednesday securing enough votes to put the agreement in place over fierce and united Republican opposition. One after another, lawmakers pointed to the warnings from foreign leaders that their own sanctions against Iran would be lifted regardless of what the United States did. ...
One senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss White House strategy said Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, a nuclear physicist who helped negotiate the deal, was a “secret weapon” in selling it to lawmakers. Not only did he know the science, he could explain it clearly, persuasively and without the condescension some heard in Secretary of State John Kerry’s presentations.Some of Mr. Kerry’s arguments, however, did resonate, especially when he quoted two prominent Israeli security experts who made favorable public comments about the Iran deal: Efraim Halevy, the former director of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and Ami Ayalon, the former director of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service. (Carl Hulse and David M. Herszenhorn, Coordinated Strategy Brings Obama Victory on Iran Nuclear Deal, New York Times, September 2, 2015.)
It is also worth mentioning that Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei issued a fatwa in 2003 condemning the possession nuclear weapons as contrary to Islam and therefore forbidden. Iran's Supreme Leader has banned Iran from making nuclear weapons.
And now with this agreement we don't even have to trust this fatwa. Inspectors can be sent in to monitor what Iran does. The agreement is not about trusting Iran, but verifying what Iran does.
PCG's leader, Gerald Flurry, proclaimed back in 1994 that Iran would be the "King of the South". Its rise to power and hostility to the United States is written in prophecy PCG has (falsely) proclaimed ever since. So PCG has a motive to yearn for hostility against Iran since peaceful relations with Iran would discredit their claim that Gerald Flurry can see the future. So the agreement makes no sense for PCG because it discredits PCG's fear mongering.
Although comprehending President Obama's motives might be a bit easier for Morley if his boss, Gerald Flurry, didn't proclaim President Obama to be "another Antiochus", an Antichrist like figure of Flurry's own devising.